Political Hay
Obstruction Management
Harry Reid’s (not quite) filibuster-proof Senate.
At 12:45 a.m. last Thursday morning, freshman Kentucky Senator Rand Paul sat down. For 12 hours and 52 minutes, the liberty-minded Republican had held the Senate floor, with the occasional help from a handful of Republican and Democratic colleagues, delaying the nomination of John Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Paul admitted early on that he didn’t have enough votes to derail the nomination. His decision to exercise a senator’s right to speak without time limit forced the Senate, the press, and the American people to focus on a controversial issue.
Paul’s filibuster was motivated by Attorney General Eric Holder’s controversial claim that the President has the authority to kill American citizens on American soil without due process of law. It also showed Washington what a real filibuster looked like.
For the past several years, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been complaining about Republican obstructionism, claiming that the GOP is preventing the Senate from getting anything done by filibustering every significant piece of legislation Reid brings to the floor. The problem for Reid is that until Rand Paul stood up to speak on Brennan’s nomination, Republicans hadn’t actually filibustered anything in years.
A quick look back at how the Senate has operated in the past highlights the extent to which Reid, an admittedly skillful political maneuverer, has brought meaningful legislative activity to an effective halt in the Upper Chamber.
Senate business is usually conducted under “unanimous consent” rules. Strict limits are placed on, for example, what bills will be considered, which amendments are in order at which times, and limits on debate. But all of these rules can be set aside if no one objects. Unanimous consent agreements, also known as “time agreements,” set out which amendments will be debated and how much time Senators have to debate them, and when the final bill will come up for a vote.
When the majority and minority leaders, or the senators they designate to lead the floor debate on major legislation, have the rough outlines of a unanimous consent agreement in place, they notify each senator’s office. Individual senators then have a few hours to register any objections. A senator may want to propose a minor amendment or seek an up or down vote on another, more controversial amendment. Once every senator is satisfied with how the debate will proceed, the majority leader seeks unanimous consent from the floor to proceed with the bill under the agreed conditions.
In exchange for consideration of their amendments, the minority surrenders its right to filibuster the bill, and all senators know that the legislation will soon get a final vote. That’s how things in the Senate have traditionally worked. Harry Reid has abandoned the practice, much to the advantage of his party and the president.
Instead of agreeing to the terms of debate at the beginning, Reid has consistently sought to shut down all discussion of major issues and prevent Republican amendments from ever making it to the floor. Using the strict Senate rules that govern in the absence of unanimous consent, Reid offers a series of amendments to every bill he brings to the floor using a practice known as “filling the tree.” No new amendments can be offered until one of Reid’s is considered or withdrawn. (Reid, of course, never actually brings any of his amendments up for consideration.) Simultaneously, Reid files a cloture motion to close debate on the bill that hasn’t even been debated yet.
Until a century ago, a lone senator could hold up any legislation indefinitely. In 1917, the Senate adopted its first cloture rule, allowing senators to end debate with a two-thirds vote. This means Mr. Smith wouldn’t have been able to hold the floor as long as he did if Frank Capra had done a little more research. In 1975, the Senate reduced the threshold for cloture to three-fifths. Now a vote from any, 60 of our current 100 Senators will bring a filibuster to an end.
Reid has been filing cloture motions against filibusters that don’t exist. Republicans haven’t been clogging the Senate floor, or staying up all night reading from phone books. They’ve voted against closing debate before it’s even started. They’ve insisted upon their right to offer amendments to pending legislation.
Reid has refused. He doesn’t want to expose his Democratic colleagues to tough votes on Republican alternatives. He likes to demagogue against what is in reality his own willful obstructionism. And in the long run, he’d like to abolish the supermajority rules that prevent him from wielding the same majoritarian power as the speaker of the House.
Sen. Paul’s filibuster showed why Senate traditions need to be protected. He and a few colleagues forced the Senate to consider a complex issue in a thoughtful way. For what it’s worth, they also made the president wait one more day to get his new CIA director. Both parties are to blame for Washington’s problems. Loose talk about a lack of bipartisanship is misleading: for decades we’ve had a long-standing bipartisan agreement to spend more money than we actually have, ignore mounting entitlement insolvency, and not enforce our immigration laws.
But the Senate’s failure to pass a budget, or get much of anything worthwhile done, is almost entirely the fault of Reid and the Senate Democrats who continue to accept him as their leader. They are the real obstructionists.
Photo: UPI
Letter to the Editor View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/11/obstruction-management
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
bustunloose| 3.11.13 @ 8:31AM
He would not be in Senate, except for the tea oarty and it's habit of getting nuts on the ballot. A Nevada Rino any day over Reid. Stew in your juices you fanatics.
Arnie| 3.11.13 @ 8:48AM
No bustonloose, the Tea Party are the REAL conservatives. The Republicans should keep nominating the lunatics....er, I mean...principled people grounded in reality.
John Navratil| 3.11.13 @ 9:56AM
bustunloose,
If Angle (sp?) hadn't run, just who would have defeated Dingy Harry?
Al Adab| 3.11.13 @ 1:21PM
Angle was up 5 in the polls the day before the election. The Reid votes came from bussed in union members and illegals. The re-election of Reid was corrupt, fraudulent and illegal. But, after all, it was necessary so the ends justify the means.
TLP| 3.11.13 @ 2:14PM
Contest this Friday, on an OFFICIAL BLOG.
KAMINSKY'S.
We've hit the Big Time, so we need all of the participation we can muster.
"And oh what heights we'll hiiiiiiit. On with the Show, this is it." (Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck)
bustunloose| 3.11.13 @ 5:01PM
Lowden woul have done it. So too Tarkanian,. but in the end I blame Tarkanian. Selfish egomaniac made it a 3 way deal. It was Lowden who was the dems biggest fear. So, we gave them a gift, as with Aiken, and then there is Indiana-never mind I'm gonna be sick. I am a Republican first. You fanatics do not understand this and of course will snarl and attack and demean people like me who are pragmatic. You need to form the conservative absolutist party, just like the left has the Green Party. I even offer you a name for yourselves-The Spleen Party. Sums you bitter acrimonious angry haters right up. Bunch of nuts.
John Navratil| 3.11.13 @ 5:21PM
bustunloose,
"Sums you bitter acrimonious angry haters right up. Bunch of nuts." Sounds kinda spleeny to me!
Arnie| 3.11.13 @ 8:45AM
"Simultaneously, Reid files a cloture motion to close debate on the bill that hasn’t even been debated yet."
This statement is complete garbage. Of course the writer doesn't list one example of this actually happening. Can Obama not even get many of his nominations a confirmation vote because of Democratic obstruction? I mean, were all the bills in the Senate from the last 4 years held up because of Democratic obstruction too? I mean, what was all the hoopla here the last few years about Republicans standing up and not voting for cloture?
I guess I shouldn't expect anything less than dog poop from a right wing rag.
"They are the real obstructionists."
Grant Boose, I hope you are reading this:
You are an idiot.
The behavior of Reublicans and their demands not to even proceed to a vote on legislation has resulted in the de facto requirement of legislation needing 60 votes for passage. These number of these holdups have sky rocketed during the last 4 years.
Stephie| 3.11.13 @ 9:11AM
Do you also deny the mountain of bills sent from the House that have never seen the light of day on the floor of the Senate because Reid refuses to put them forward? He is in collusion with obama to keep their opposing party on the defensive. The left is the party that is the obstructionist party, not the right. It's nothing but pure politics with obama's party and not one bit of wanting to work with the other side of the aisle. This smarmy little worm of a man is contemptuous and just about a good a liar as his boss.
Arnie, you sound especially grouchy this morning. Lighten up on the name calling, okay?
Arnie| 3.11.13 @ 9:48AM
Stephie, so the Democrats in the Senate have been obstructionists of their own agenda?
Makes perfect sense.
Obama was reelected. The Democrats were relected to keep the Senate, and the Democrats actually got more votes for the House than your beloved Republicans did.
Sorry, but the Republicans have a real problem accepting the will of the people. They don't actually respect democracy, nor the vote of over half the nation.
Stephie| 3.11.13 @ 10:40AM
What about the will of the 48% who voted against obama? Do you not understand a president is to represent ALL of the people of this nation? All of the legal people of this nation, not just the ones who voted for him? Do you want a one party system Arnie? We're hedging that way.
Arnie| 3.11.13 @ 11:03AM
"Oh yes, I forgot, when Republicans and Bush were in power, they definitely passed Democratic legislation and policies. They even encouraged legislation from the Progressive caucus".....said nobody ever.
Steph, I don't know what you are thinking, but the Democratic leadership hardly listens to their base. And besides, how could Congress possibly pass legislation that represents all sides, when those 2 sides have fundamentally different views.
They can't, and that's not the point. The point is that outgoing party recognizes the victory of the winning party. And vice versa if the table was turned. That's how democracies and political parties work.
jothepro| 3.11.13 @ 12:23PM
Hey Arnie, If you think anything you post here will change what conservatives believe, you are wasting your progressive breath.........ASSHOLE.
RonRonDoRon| 3.11.13 @ 2:27PM
In politics, especially in our system, recognizing victory does not have to equal unconditional surrender.
Al Adab| 3.11.13 @ 2:54PM
Why all this talk about either party welcoming legislation from the other? We have two diametrically opposing views of what this nation is and ought to be; of what public discourse means and what the cultural and moral norms are. How would any of you propose to reconcile that?
TLP| 3.11.13 @ 4:24PM
Unless your name is John McCain.
irish19| 3.11.13 @ 10:57AM
So why has the Senate failed to put forth a budget for the last four years (and counting)?
TLP| 3.11.13 @ 1:29PM
The better question is: Why do the Republicans not FORCE him to pass a Budget, instead of folding like a Cheap Camera, and passing all these Continuing Resolutions?
Pick up the Phone, and CALL EVERYONE!
RonRonDoRon| 3.11.13 @ 2:34PM
"Democrats actually got more votes for the House"
This talking point is getting so tiresome. The overwhelming reason for the slightly higher (0.26%) aggregate vote for Democrats in House elections is that urban districts elect Democrats by much higher margins than suburban and rural districts elect Republicans.
A simple illustration of how this works:
Party A Party B
District 1: 65 35
District 2: 45 55
District 3: 45 55
Total: 155 145
The result is that Party A gets more votes but gets only one representative while Party B, with fewer votes, gets two representatives.
RonRonDoRon| 3.11.13 @ 2:36PM
Sorry - the formatting of that table looked OK before I hit "submit."
RonRonDoRon| 3.11.13 @ 2:25PM
"Obama not even get many of his nominations a confirmation vote"
A nomination is not a bill. It can't be obstructed by "filling the tree" with amendments. (How does one offer an amendment to a nomination?)
Perhaps Republicans obstruct nomination because they feel there are real objections to nominees? Perhaps their frustration over obstructed bills and amendments makes them more likely to be obstructive in the only area they have an opening to be obstructive?
Frustration is a common human reaction and is entirely valid in a political context.
Al Adab| 3.11.13 @ 9:36AM
When will the Senate pass a budget? Should not the House pass a balanced budget and send it up for Senate action? At least then we would see clearly just who the true obstructionists are.
Von Mises Jr| 3.11.13 @ 10:16AM
The House has sent several Budgets to the Senate and they refuse to act. But that does not relieve the House from their Constitutional prerogative and duty.
They are not required to approve the CR at current levels or to raise the Debt Ceiling. If I am not mistaken, if they approved a CR it should be a continuation of the last Budget that I believe was G.W. Bush 2008 Budget that was $2.93 trillion. But the CR's are for $3.6T to $3.8T.
So while the Senate is rouge, the House has not done their constitutional Duty. In fact, since ObamaCare did not exist in 2008, the CR's that fund its implementation are bogus.
But then who in DC gives a flying Fluke about the Constitution?
Al Adab| 3.11.13 @ 1:18PM
The new House GOP budget out today contains a repeal of Obiecare. This is something the country wants but Reid and the boys won't ever go for it. All we will get from the sycophant Senate (where is Cicero, Cato and courage) is ever bigger CRs. You are right in that increasing spending with CRs is likely illegal. Who is to sue and prove the point? The States need to demand adherence to our Constitution. Sadly too many of them are taking the medicaid money. Addicts.
TLP| 3.11.13 @ 1:30PM
They can only get a CR, if John Boehnor LET'S THEM.
Al Adab| 3.11.13 @ 2:55PM
...and thereby hangs a tail.
Anthony| 3.11.13 @ 10:17AM
Harry Reid and John McLame are two sides of the same bum coin. Reid is a total and complete reprobate; angry, bitter, old, feeble and full of hate for Republicans and America, in that order.
McLame is Reid's twin, except long ago, McLame used to stand on principle.
McLame should have been on the floor of the senate with Paul and others, not dining with the leader of America's demise. McLame is now catching it for his asinine misreading of this entire situation. I bet the Palin hating Steve Schmidt advised McLame to dine with Obozo.
For a man who deeply suspected Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques, one would think Holder's pronouncement that Obozo had the authority to use military assets on Americans, on America soil, without due process, would have sent McLame into orbit.
But McLame is now totally corrupted by power, as are the majority who dwell in the cesspool of the Senate. And of course, kissing Obozo's ass will keep him in good graces with the whores in the MSM.
Stephie| 3.11.13 @ 10:42AM
Your post Anthony is the reason this government is in dire need of term limits.
Anthony| 3.11.13 @ 11:39AM
Yes Stephie, but the same denizens who control the cesspool swamp refuse to drain it. Home Sweet Home for the lame and the corrupt.
Only a seismic shift will split open the bottom of the D.C. swamp.
Which, by the way, is why the government has invested in the purchasing of billions of rounds of hollow point bullets.
Anthony| 3.11.13 @ 12:46PM
Amend my last comment, according to Drudge, Napolitano wants to purchase an additonal 1.6B rounds of ammo and military style assault vehicles direct from the war in Afghanistan.
As Drudge posits; "What is she up too?"
Do John McLame and Lindsey Grahamisty know about this, do they even care????
TLP| 3.11.13 @ 1:31PM
STEPHIE!
Contest this Friday, on an OFFICIAL BLOG.
KAMINSKY'S.
We've hit the Big Time, so we need all of the participation we can muster.
"And oh what heights we'll hiiiiiiit. On with the Show, this is it." (Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck)
ncatty| 3.11.13 @ 11:13AM
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Arnie| 3.11.13 @ 11:25AM
Yes, when Republicans can't win fairly, they resort to trying to win unfairly.
Yes, great example ncatty. Let's make the system even LESS democratic and representative.....Not.
John Navratil| 3.11.13 @ 11:41AM
Arnie,
Just what is your proposal to ensure the states interests are representing in Washington? After all, this is a federation of individual states is it not?
You may recall that the Founders were very suspicious of democratic institutions which is precisely why the Senate was comprised of members selected by the states and with terms of six years. It was to temper the more volatile will of the people.
Now, what does the 17th amendment have to do with fairness of elections? Nothing, of course, but that doesn't stop you from flinging more exploding pig poop.
Arnie| 3.11.13 @ 11:55AM
So you actually want leaders that are NOT elected?
This discussion is over, if you are not actually committed to people voting for their representatives. If you truly aren't, move to Saudi Arabia.
And by the way, the interests of the states are represented in Washington, by their elected senators.
The problem is not who is voting or not voting from the public. The real problem is the corruption of our politicians by a corporate class that expects every decision to either be their decision, or at least, approved by them.
If you want to fix Washington, and give more power to the states and people, get rid of private donations to campaigns which amount to legalized bribery. In this current system, a very small amount of people and businesses that are extremely wealthy are really calling the shots. Especially when they offer our leaders high paying positions after they leaave.
Let's have public financing of campaigns, where money doesn't win, but ideas do.
That's what would be fair and right.
jothepro| 3.11.13 @ 12:32PM
Arnie, Ronald Reagan was thinking about people like you when he said "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
John Navratil| 3.11.13 @ 1:57PM
Arnie,
Who said the leaders were no elected? The states elected their representatives. The electors were, themselves, elected popularly. It's a bit like the electoral college. And if you think the Senators represent people and institutions who do not vote for them, you are an idealistic fool. Did Ted Kennedy give two hoots in hell that Romney was his governor?
The discussion with you is always over. Oh, and I have lived in Saudi Arabia. I like it better here and even better if the 17th amendment was repealed. I suspect you'd like it too as liberal Austin would not likely send Cornyn and Cruz to D.C.
JD| 3.11.13 @ 2:14PM
The first half of Arnie's post would be correct if he removed the word "corporate." That expectations i held by everyone, Leftists as much as any.
The last half of his post represents typical leftist ignorance of what money is.
Leftists want a world in which those on the public dole, who have no jobs, can spend all day speaking, writing, and contributing to campaigns, while those of us who make the world work and actually know what it takes are too busy to do those things and thus have far less voice. But in the real world, we have a means of exchange by which time, energy, and resources can be exchanged for like value in other forms. This is called "trading", and is facilitated by a medium of exchange called "money."
If I do not have the time to hand-make my own signs, I can use this "money" to have them made for me. Or if I don't want to spend money, I can hand-make. I spend the same amount of value either way; only the form of the value spent differs.
Arnie and his ilk want to ban many types of trades, while allowing others, so that the forms of value possessed most by Leftists gain precedence over the forms of value possessed on the Right, so that elections are rigged in his favor. He wants to ban free speech for those who don't have wealth in the right forms.
bustunloose| 3.11.13 @ 5:07PM
Give us half the band width of the 3 networks, A red state PBS and we can begin a discussion on public financing. Take that boob bait and have it for diner.
davidh| 3.11.13 @ 12:32PM
What is interesting to me is how the Democrats are arguing for “democracy” in our republic.
Polls are displayed by Dems to show the will of the American people is being thwarted by the House of Representatives to stop:
1. Gun control
2. Immigration reform
3. Progressive tax and spend agenda
4. Abortion
5. Same sex everything
It is fascinating to watch the media whine about how the election settled these issues and the Republicans are obstructing the will of the people. Go to liberal sites and read the comments from their faithful about how democracy should rule over the concept of the Republic.
The position of the minority in the USA is not as weak as we are lead to believe.
1. Republicans control 30 governorships highest since 2000
2. House majority is relatively safe in Red States
3. 10th amendment gives power to the states, leadership should use it.
Obama can never do what he wants to do to the USA as long as this structure exists.
Hold the Republicans feet to the fire and Obama will be stopped. That is why the media and democrats need to attack the Tea Party. This minority has power and needs to be conservative to wield it.
Albertus Magnus| 3.11.13 @ 5:27PM
I have only one quibble: The 10th Amendment does not "give" power to the States. The 10th Amendment tells the US Government that any powers that are not DELEGATED to the US Government, the States RESERVE to themselves. The States were not given these powers, they already have them and declare that they will keep them. Also, I agree with you completely, the Governors of the several States should ASSERT their powers and stop kowtowing to the Federal government. The Federal government is the SERVANT of the States, not their master.
davidh| 3.11.13 @ 6:02PM
Agreed, but the SCOTUS does not.
Decision after decision by the SCOTUS has eroded this balance and the states are in a defensive position.
It is/was inevitable that the central power in Washington would seek to take as much power incrementally from the states as possible. That has and continues to happen.
Wish your reading of the constitution was the law of the land. Does not matter what it reads, the SCOTUS knows better and they rule on a living interpretation, which means anything they want it to mean.
TLP| 3.11.13 @ 1:34PM
I don't see Anna, today.
Apparently, her trip to the Doctor's Office to have the Tatoos on her Genital Warts removed, went -shall we say - less than perfectly.
JD| 3.11.13 @ 2:08PM
At this point, neither side even bothers advancing legislation that it knows won't pass, so either side can accuse the other of being "do-nothing" based on that. None of it is worth talking about.
fmm| 3.11.13 @ 3:36PM
Good to see someone try to shed light on Reid's obfuscation. Now find a way to get this out to the gerneral public.
Albertus Magnus| 3.11.13 @ 4:35PM
What the Leftists are ignoring is that the government is violating the Law. On many fronts. And yes, they were indeed elected precisely to do this, by an electorate bought and paid for with taxpayer money. Democrats use taxpayer money to buy votes like Roman Senators used money to buy votes, through unconstitutional federal subsidies and payouts. The simple truth is that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Bozo do not have the legal authority to do about 80% of what they are doing, from foodstamps to Obozo-Kare. Being elected is NOT license to violate the Supreme law of the Land, leftist propaganda notwithstanding. Conservatives lost the Presidential election because we did not field a candidate. Romney is not Conservative. And frankly, Conservatives have little actual Representation in Congress, Senator Rand Paul being one of the very few.
Debating the facts with Leftist seminar posters on these pages is a waste of time. What we need to do is talk to people and get them to understand exactly what government is doing and the harm they have already done, harm to the economy, the exploding debt, the abjectly lunatical foreign policy. Democrats are simply greedy, ego-centric fools who see only themselves as "relevant" and care not a whit for the common people. That so many Democrat voters are oblivious to this simple truth as why we are in the state we are in.
hrgfue | 3.11.13 @ 10:13PM
Which is the best blog for us.we are enjoy it and will show them to everyone.
Gartenmayer | 3.12.13 @ 4:39AM
Sen. Paul’s filibuster showed why Senate traditions need to be protected. He and a few colleagues forced the Senate to consider a complex issue in a thoughtful way. For what it’s worth, they also made the president wait one more day to get his new CIA director. Both parties are to blame for Washington’s problems. Loose talk about a lack of bipartisanship is misleading: for decades we’ve had a long-standing bipartisan agreement to http://www.toneweras.com/new-era-nfl-c-54.html spend more money than we actually have, ignore mounting entitlement insolvency, and not enforce our immigration laws.
But the Senate’s failure to pass a budget, or get much of anything worthwhile done, is almost entirely the fault of Reid and the Senate Democrats who continue to accept him as their leader. They are the real obstructionists.
homme nike air max BW | 3.12.13 @ 5:32AM
General Eric Holder’s controversial http://www.flickr.com/photos/9.....hotostream claim that the President has the authority to kill American citizens on American soil without due process of law. It also showed Washington what a real filibuster looked like